And, why would they be considering removing such troops as you mention unless the situation was stable?

And the situation has stabilized because we are bribing the sheiks with weapons and money to fight for us.

"we" have not kicked anything. You and I type from the safety of our homes. Real men have to go out and bleed and die so that you can talk tough.

And so that you can deny the import of their task, continually.

And Anderson:

Some of the roughly 4,000 extra Marines in Anbar province might head out by then, too.

That ends up being a significant reduction from what was there, no? And, why would they be considering removing such troops as you mention unless the situation was stable?

Whereas in Anbar, we've come kicked AQ butt, and left... and they've not come back.

Yes, we see how well bribing and arming warlords to do the fighting has worked for Afghanistan's long-term stability..

Whereas in Anbar, we've come kicked AQ butt, and left... and they've not come back.

Bithead, how old are you, really?

"we" have not kicked anything. You and I type from the safety of our homes. Real men have to go out and bleed and die so that you can talk tough.

We've left Anbar? Tell it to the Marines:

Petraeus might be inclined to send home, perhaps as early as January [2008], one of the extra five Army brigades that Bush sent to Baghdad. Some of the roughly 4,000 extra Marines in Anbar province might head out by then, too.

As someone noted elsewhere on the internets, the Brits "surged" in Basra, which indeed produced results ... for the exact duration of the surge. After which, they got chased into their strongholds, and are now planning to get the hell out entirely.

Whereas in Anbar, we've come kicked AQ butt, and left... and they've not come back.

You see? It's not all that hard to understand, after all.

The long and the short of it is, this sudden openess to the Generals is nothing other than cynical politicaly expediency.

If this is the case, why are so few willing to go on the record in this article?

It's like thinking that putting twice as many cops on the beat in South Central LA is going to solve the crime problem. You'll get results, until the cops leave.

Why is this so difficult for intelligent people to grasp?

Defeat Caucus? For this I could go to Powerline, but I won't.

The long and the short of it is, this sudden openess to the Generals is nothing other than cynical politicaly expediency.

So even if the Dems wanted to agree with your lame analysis you won't allow it. No political expediency there, right?

They're analyzing the situation and though it may be hard for you understand, they don't have to cram every last fact into an ideological narrative. Succeeding tactically but not politically is no small thing -- look at the invasion, for pete's sake.

Obviously, political reconciliation is essential. Criticism of the Iraqi officials who took the whole month of August off is entirely appropriate. But political solutions in Iraq cannot come about without military success; nor are they likely to gain any real ground while the Defeat Caucus here at home demands pulling the rug out from underneath the people over there who have to stay behind to make it work.

Well, given the fact that so far the surge produced 100% negative political dynamic (i.e. there's only a sectarian government now), what you say doesn't seem so obvious. Also, arming and training Sunni militias despite the protests from the government might also not be the best idea for providing political solution. In fact, it could be argued that in the long run the surge would only make things worse, by setting up the scene for a larger massacre.

Or not. Dick Durbin called the surge a product of "delusion" a mere six months ago.

He said that the idea that sending more troops would "bring this to an end sooner" was delusion. The surge has netted no progress on political reconciliation (necessary to "bring this to an end"). You have done nothing to prove his earlier statement wrong.

Levin and Reed were pressing a bill mandating a pullout a month ago with Bob Casey's vocal support.

Read the rest of what they said. Tano provided you with some of it. When Petraeus comes out with his report and it is at best a mixed bag with no real end in sight there will likely be renewed calls for redeploying our troops.

Jerry McNerney's switch is the most profound. Five months ago he called the surge a "misguided plan" that was nothing more than a continuation of a "failed approach" and that "escalat[ing] the war in Iraq will not bring success there."

Has the surge brought political reconciliation (mandatory for any meaningful success)? Has it made America safer? (his other point)

Obviously, political reconciliation is essential.

The idea behind the surge is that it would provide space for that reconciliation. Some space has been provided. Political reconciliation is no closer. If this approach had been applied from the beginning with appropriate troop levels as many advised at the time (or better yet we did not invade at all) we would be looking at a different and likely much better situation. Unfortunately this did not happen and the surge has provided too little, far too late.
BTW How long do you think we should provide that space with no progress towards reconciliation before we decide that the strategy did not work? 6 months? a year? 10 years? 40 years?

And then, if General Petraeus says what everyone who’s actually been paying attention since before the polls swung ’round is expecting him to, they’ll have given themselves advance cover for the switch.

It appears that Petraeus will be giving a mixed report citing some success vs AQ, some success limiting violence in localized areas, and virtually no political progress. All in all considerably less than half of stated goals reached or with significant progress. Without considerable spin this will not change many people's minds.
Could you cite the polls that have swung around? I haven't noticed a dramatic shift in support for the war, or support for drawing down troop levels in any of the polls I have seen.

Breaking News, politicians cover their a$$es. According to Dodd this means Democrats are cynical.

Or not. Dick Durbin called the surge a product of "delusion" a mere six months ago.

Levin and Reed were pressing a bill mandating a pullout a month ago with Bob Casey's vocal support.

Jerry McNerney's switch is the most profound. Five months ago he called the surge a "misguided plan" that was nothing more than a continuation of a "failed approach" and that "escalat[ing] the war in Iraq will not bring success there."

Obviously, political reconciliation is essential. Criticism of the Iraqi officials who took the whole month of August off is entirely appropriate. But political solutions in Iraq cannot come about without military success; nor are they likely to gain any real ground while the Defeat Caucus here at home demands pulling the rug out from underneath the people over there who have to stay behind to make it work.

The long and the short of it is, this sudden openess to the Generals is nothing other than cynical politicaly expediency.